Category: Construction

Wood (T/A Propave) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Feb 2011

FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – ‘Compliance test’ – Whether there was a reasonable excuse on the facts – Yes – Appeal allowed – section 66 and schedule 11 Finance Act 2004

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 136 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2004 66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.442902

Mclaren Murdoch and Hamilton Limited v the Abercromby Motor Group Ltd: OHCS 22 Nov 2002

The claimant architects sought payment of their professional fees. The defenders alleged negligence and breach of contract.
Held: The fee must be based on the final account in the building contract, and not on any budget figure.

Judges:

Lord Drummond Young

Citations:

[2002] ScotCS 299

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Scotland, Construction

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179400

Sahib Foods Limited and Co-operative Insurance Society Limited v Paskin Kyriakides Sands (A Firm): TCC 3 Mar 2003

The claimants were lessees of premises, and the second claimants had contracted to purchase it. The premises burned down, and the claimants sought damages from the architect respondents. The fire began because of negligence by the claimant’s employee in a preparation area after leaving a gas fire burning.
Held: The defendants had failed in their design to provide proper safeguards. Damages were to be assessed by first assessing the total loss to Sahib (both physical and consequential in terms of trading loss), and then deducting the total of what would have been lost (both physical and consequential) if the fire had been contained but for the design fault.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Bowsher Q.C.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 142 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Bellefield Computer Services and others v E Turner and Sons Limited and others CA 18-Dec-2002
The defendants had carried out works of construction on the premises. They subcontracted the design, but not the supervision, of the works to architects. Years later there was a fire, which spread rapidly because of negligence in the design of a . .
Cited – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
Cited – Pride Valley Foods Limited v Hall and Partners and Hall and Partners (Contract Management) Limited CA 28-Jun-2001
The defendants had advised on the construction of a plant. It later burned down, and the fire would have been less damaging but for materials used. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and negligence. The judge at first instance held . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sahib Foods Limited (In Liquidation) v Paskin Kyriakides Sands (A Firm) CA 19-Dec-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Construction, Damages

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179554

Scottish and Newcastle plc v GD Construction (St Albans) Ltd: CA 22 Jan 2003

The employer and main contractor had contracted under the JCT conditions. The employer had been obliged to insure the property for fire in their joint names, but had not done so. After a fire caused by the negligence of a sub-contractor, he sued.
Held: The judge should have concluded that the effect of the contract was that the parties had agreed to exclude liability for negligence. The employer had an explicit obligation to insure in joint names and without subrogation, as part of an agreement allocating risks under the contract

Judges:

Ward, Longmore LJJ, Aikens J

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-2003, Gazette 20-Mar-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd HL 1986
The court acknowledged the practice in construction contracts making an express link between the liability imposed on the contractor, the specific aspect of such liability which iwas excluded and the existence of insurance (intended to benefit both . .
Cited – Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others HL 25-Apr-2002
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
Cited – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Construction

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178770

South Lanarkshire Council v Coface Sa: SCS 27 Jan 2015

Outer House The pursuer seeks payment of the sum of andpound;4,499,410.32 under a performance guarantee Bond. The defender contends that the notice served by the pursuer to trigger the Bond was invalid. Liability turns on two interlinked issues. First, what is the proper construction of the Bond? Second, did the notice comply with the terms of the Bond?

Judges:

Lord Woolman

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Construction

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.541998

Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 12 May 2002

Taxpayers sought exemption from VAT for works to a building. The commissioners claimed that the main building was not a dwelling, and that therefore the outbuilding would not be exempt.
Held: The main building was listed, and the outbuilding was with in the curtilage as defined in the 1990 Act. Works to the outbuilding therefore attracted the same exemption as the main building. There appeared no proper reason to treat the outbuilding as a separate building.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

Times 29-May-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 692, [2002] STC 829

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 1(5), Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 8 Grp 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise 2001
‘Note (1)(a) of Group 6 provides that an essential feature of a protected building is that it is a listed building ‘within the meaning of’ the 1990 Act. A listed building ‘within the meaning of’ the 1990 Act is a building which falls within the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zielinski Baker and Partners Limited HL 26-Feb-2004
The commissioners sought to charge to VAT charges for works which had been carried out to a building within the curtilage of a listed building. The taxpayer sought zero-rating.
Held: The outbuilding to which alterations were made must have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Construction

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171305

China National Petroleum Corporation and others v Fenwick Elliott, Techint International Construction Company: ChD 31 Jan 2002

In the course of a dispute, the claimants concluded that the respondents had acquired documents of a confidential nature, and sought restoration and disclosure of the source. The solicitors for the respondents suggested that the claimants were in breach of disclosure orders, and that the materials were not privileged, and would be subject to disclosure in any event. It was then alleged that the respondent firm had acted improperly in seeking privileged information from employees of the claimants. It was argued that the sources of the information should be disclosed, but the respondents argued that this might put them at personal risk. In this case there was no evidence of privilege inhering, and no specific allegations, and the respondents claim of privilege attaching to his interviews of witnesses succeeded. The claim had no prospect of success and was struck out.

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 60 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd CA 18-Dec-2000
The court can order the identity of a wrongdoer to be revealed where the person against whom the order was sought had become involved in his tortious acts. This might apply even where the acts were unlawful, but fell short of being tortious. There . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Intellectual Property, Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167535

Baxall Securities Limited, Norbain SDC Limited v Sheard Walshaw Partnership, Shaw Whitmore Partnership, Birse Construction Limited, FK Roofing Limited, Fullflow Limited: CA 22 Jan 2002

Claims followed the flooding of a new built building. It was alleged that the gutters were designed without overflows, and so were defective. The judge found that it had been designed to a lower, and wrong capacity.
Held: The assessment of the appropriate design rate has to be made without regard to overflow capacity. It was argued that a defect was patent (i.e. not latent) if the dangerous propensity is apparent, even if the actual nature of the flaw is not. That argument failed. A latent defect means a concealed flaw, the actual defect in the workmanship or design, not the danger presented by the defect. There was no distinction in principle between drainage and overflow arrangements. The chain of causation between the architect’s error in regard to the provision of overflows and both floods was broken. The links in the chain cannot be re-connected to the second flood merely because there was another error which rendered the provision of overflows the more important.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale, And, Mr Justice David Steel

Citations:

[2002] BLR 100, [2002] EWCA Civ 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167474

C and B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd: CA 31 Jan 2002

The claimant appealed a refusal of summary judgement, in a claim to enforce an arbitration award. Where an award was challenged, enforcement should still be allowed to continue unless the challenge went as to the jurisdiction of the reference. Errors of procedure, fact or law are not sufficient to prevent enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision by summary judgment. In this case there was agreement as to the scope of the dispute, and the Adjudicator’s decision, even with errors of law as to the relevant contractual provisions, is still binding and enforceable until the matter is corrected in the final determination. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Rix, And, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 46, [2002] BLR 93

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bouygues UK Limited v Dahl-Jensen UK Limited TCC 17-Dec-1999
An arbitrator had made an award, the consequence of which, it was claimed, would lead to a retention being released before it was actually due. It was claimed that this part of the award was outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard TCC 26-Apr-2005
Application for leave to appeal against arbitrator’s award in construction dispute.
Held: The appeal was declined. . .
Cited – Melville Dundas Ltd and others v George Wimpey UK Ltd and others HL 25-Apr-2007
The appellant sought an interim payment for works of construction undertaken for the respondents under a JCT contract. The respondents contended that, having terminated the contract on their receivership, the contract and Act meant that the interim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167534

Shyam Jewellers Limited v M Cheeseman: CA 29 Nov 2001

The parties contracted for building work to the claimant’s shop. The shop-keeper had been regularly late in making stage payments. Eventually the contractor repudiated the contract part way through. The judge proposed a decision on a preliminary issue as to who had repudiated the contract, but one party was not available to be examined in person. The judge proceeded in his absence.
Held: A judge hearing a Part 24 application for summary judgement must be careful about trying issues of fact, but both counsel had consented to the approach. The judge had held that the claimant had himself repudiated the contract by failing to make payments, and the claimant appealed said that such failure did not do to the root of the contract so as to amount to a repudiation. The difference is between a party merely dragging his heels in paying, and one whose late payments justify the conclusion of his inability or unwillingness to pay. Here the defendant had not made any formal demand sufficient to put the claimant on notice that his conduct would be treated as a repudiation.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, And, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1818

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ross T Smyth and Co Ltd v Bailey Son and Co HL 1940
The court looked to what had to be shown for one party to a contract to take the actions of the other as a repudiation.
Lord Wright said that: ‘repudiation of a contract is a serious matter, not to be lightly found or inferred’ and ‘I do not . .
Cited – Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing Limited CA 1971
Once the court has concluded that a ‘reasonable notice’ requirement was to be implied into a contract, the question of what notice period was reasonable must be judged as at the time the notice was given.
Buckley LJ also set out the test for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.166953

Smith (Administrator of Cosslett (Contractors) Limited) v Bridgend County Borough Council; In re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd: HL 8 Nov 2001

The standard building contract allowed a contractor to take plant and equipment from a site and sell it in payment of sums due under the contract, upon the other contractor becoming insolvent. It was said that this power amounted to a charge over the company’s assets, and should have registered at Companies House. Upon entering receivership, the contractor vacated the site, but the respondent found another contractor to continue the work using the same substantial equipment. The contractor’s receiver alleged the contract was void for non-registration.
Held: The clause operated as a floating charge, and was void as against the liquidator or administrator. It should have been registered.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lords Bingham, Browne-Wilkinson and Rodger; Lord Scott (dissenting)

Citations:

[2001] UKHL 58, [2002] 1 AC 336, 80 Con LR 172, [2001] 3 WLR 1347, [2002] 1 All ER 292, [2002] 1 BCLC 77, [2002] TCLR 7, [2001] BCC 740, [2002] BLR 160, [2001] NPC 161

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 395

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Independent Automatic Sales Ltd v Knowles and Foster ChD 1962
The company in liquidation had sold machines on hire-purchase. It sued the finance company to recover hire-purchase agreements and other securities which it had charged to secure the repayment of advances. When the finance company relied upon the . .
Appeal from – Smith (Administrator of Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd) v Bridgend County Borough Council CA 19-Jan-2000
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Marcq v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd CA 23-May-2003
The claimant’s stolen painting was put up for sale by the defendant. On being withdrawn, they returned it to the person who had brought it in. The claimant sought damages.
Held: There was no reported case in which a court has had to consider . .
Cited – Burton (Collector of Taxes) v Mellham Ltd HL 15-Feb-2006
The claimant sought interest on an overpayment of Advance Corporation Tax. The tax itself had been paid late, and the Collector claimed a set off.
Held: The claim to DTR could not be described as an attempt at self-help. It had a statutory . .
Cited – Online Catering Ltd v Acton and Another CA 10-Feb-2010
The claimant agreed for the defendant to repair its fleet of vehicles. The defendant, having fees outstanding, entered the claimants’ premises and removed vehicles saying falsely that they were to be repaired, and then refused to return them. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Construction, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166805

Kirkby v Hughes: Chd 22 Feb 1993

Income tax was payable under Schedule D on the sale of a builder’s own house. He was shown to have been, in effect, trading taking into account his past record, and doubts about his intention ever to occupy the house as his residence. Some element of permanent residence was required to apply for relief.

Citations:

Ind Summary 22-Feb-1993, (1993) 65 TC 532

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Longson v HM Inspector of Taxes CA 13-Mar-2001
The taxpayer disposed of his farmhouse, and sought exemption from Capital Gains Tax under sections 101 and 102 of the 1989 Act. The Revenue said it had not been his only or main residence. Contracts had been exchanged for its purchase in 1983, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.82806

Ballast Plc v The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Limited: SCS 21 Jun 2001

In a building dispute, the arbitrator found that the parties had departed from the standard JCT terms, and declined to arbitrate. The parties said that when called upon to act he ‘shall’ do so. The adjudicator had misconstrued his powers. It was clear that there was a proper dispute requiring his decision, and he was bound to provide one.

Judges:

Lord Reed

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-2001, [2001] ScotCS 159

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108, Scheme for Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 1988 (1998 No 687)

Citing:

Cited – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164233

James Scott Limited v Apollo Engineering Limited and others: SCS 24 Jan 2000

Judges:

Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2000] ScotCS 18

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Cited by:

See Also – Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd SCS 7-Mar-2008
Outer House – Court of Session . .
See Also – Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd SCS 21-May-2009
Application for judicial review of arbitration . .
See also – Apollo Engineering Ltd (In Liquidation) v James Scott Ltd SCS 18-Jan-2012
The parties had for several years been involved in litigation and arbitration. Apollo’s funds had run out and a director sought permission to represent the company before the court. He had asked the court to make an order under article 6 of the . .
See Also – Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd SCS 27-Nov-2012
Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against order refusing permission for a shareholder and director of a party to represent the company.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
See Also – Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd (Scotland) SC 13-Jun-2013
After long running litigation between the parties, a shareholder and director of Apollo sought to represent the company in person. He was refused leave by the Court of Session, and now sought to appeal. The Court considered the possibility of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Construction

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.163758

Manchester and District Housing Association v Fearnley Construction Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) and Another: ChD 17 Aug 2000

The defendant builder contracted to build on and then convey the land and building to the claimant. The builder charged the land, but failed to complete the building, and went into liquidation. The claimant sought specific performance with a reduction of the purchase price reflecting the breach. The builder asserted that the obligation to sell only arose on the completion of the building. It was held that the claimant was entitled to the land, since the builder could not rely upon his own fault. Any conditionality was gone once the building work began.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Aug-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Land

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83364

K1 Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Jul 2010

Construction Industry Scheme — appeal against removal of gross payment status — whether ‘reasonable excuse’ within paragraph 12 (3) Schedule 11 Finance Act 2004 – whether defaults to be disregarded under Regulation 32 The Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 — whether Appellant failed ‘reason to expect’ test in paragraph 12 (7) Schedule 11 Finance Act 2004 — appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 347 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.422317

Lorde (Administratrix of the Estate of Desmond Cave, Deceased) v The Transport Board: PC 29 Mar 2001

(Barbados) The parties had contracted to construct a restaurant. It was claimed that a condition of the contract requiring approval of planning conditions imposed was not fulfilled.
Held: When the contract had been made, the clause was intended to protect the land-owner in case the authority imposed unacceptable conditions. It imposed a five day limit. There was nothing in the contract to suggest any other reading, and therefore the limit was strict. The approval could not be said to have been unreasonably withheld.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett. Dame Sian Elias

Citations:

[2001] UKPC 14, No 27 of 2000

Links:

Bailii, PC

Citing:

Cited – Aberfoyle Plantations Ltd v Cheng PC 1959
A purchase had been made conditional on the renewal of certain leases. Accordingly the successful negotiation of those renewals with a third party had been made a condition of the contract. The consequences of failure had been spelt out in detail. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Construction

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159454

Bay Hotel and Resort Limited and Zurich Indemnity Company of Canada v Cavalier Construction Co Ltd and Cavalier Construction Co Ltd: PC 16 Jul 2001

(Turks and Caicos Islands) A dispute after a construction contract was under standard terms according to the laws of Turks and Caicos islands. Two issues were appealed. What was a ‘reasoned award’ within the scheme, and whether the arbitrator could himself add a party to the arbitration. The substantive rather than procedural law of the country where the arbitration was carried out need not be that of the contract. The dispute properly fell to be arbitrated under the standard AAA terms, which provided that both the procedural and jurisdictional law to be applied would be that of the Islands. Though the award was insufficiently detailed to constitute a reasoned decision in English law, the evidence was that it would satisfy the requirements of the law under which it was issued. The clause regarding joinder was one restricting a power which must be derived elsewhere. There was no such power in this case, and the arbitrator was unable to join the other company without the consent of the other parties to the dispute.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett

Citations:

[2001] UKPC 34, Appeal No 32 0f 2000

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC, PC

Arbitration, Construction, Contract, Jurisdiction, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159474

Lafarge Redlands Aggregates Limited (Formerly Redland Aggregates Limited) v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited: HL 27 Jul 2000

Once a main contractor chose, under the standard form contract, to have his dispute with one sub-contractor referred to arbitration as part of another dispute with a different contractor, he should complete the procedure within a reasonable time. It was wrong to seek to defer the settlement of one dispute while he sought to reach a settlement with the other, and he had no right to do so.

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Clyde Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Millett

Citations:

Gazette 17-Aug-2000, Times 11-Aug-2000, [2000] UKHL 46, [2000] 1 WLR 1621

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – M J Gleeson Group Plc v Wyatt of Snetterton Limited CA 1994
The Court rejected a sub-contractor’s argument that a dispute between the main contractor and the employer within the meaning of clause 18(2) can only arise when clause 66 is invoked. The word ‘dispute’ in clause 18(2) must be given its ordinary . .
Cited – Erith Contractors Limited v Costain Civil Engineering Limited 1994
The meaning and effect of clause 18(2) was considered.
Held: It was axiomatic that if the contractor requires the sub-contract dispute to be dealt with jointly with the main contract dispute with the employer in accordance with the provisions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159081

J Jarvis and Sons Ltd v Castle Wharf Developments Ltd, Gleeds Management Services Ltd, Franklin Ellis Architects Ltd: CA 19 Jan 2001

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Arden LJJ, Collins J

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 19, [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 308, (2001) 17 Const LJ 430, [2001] NPC 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Professional Negligence, Agency

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147399

Smith (Administrator of Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd) v Bridgend County Borough Council: CA 19 Jan 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Smith (Administrator of Cosslett (Contractors) Limited) v Bridgend County Borough Council; In re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd HL 8-Nov-2001
The standard building contract allowed a contractor to take plant and equipment from a site and sell it in payment of sums due under the contract, upon the other contractor becoming insolvent. It was said that this power amounted to a charge over . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Construction

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147034

Stock and others v London Underground Ltd: CA 30 Jul 1999

The principles for damages over different heads which apply in other areas of law apply also in building disputes. Where there are several heads of damages, claims did not give rise to separate causes of action in respect of each head, and evidence of damage under each head need not necessarily be shown. There were not in this case separate acts or activities giving rise to the separate heads of claim.

Citations:

Times 13-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2058

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Damages

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146973

Redland Aggregates Limited v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited: CA 29 Jul 1999

The defendant building contractor sought a stay of collection of the sub-contractor’s bill of costs pending the determination of the House of Lords.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Auld LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 2028

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Redland Aggregates Limited v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited CA 11-Dec-1998
The opinion which the contract provided for the main contractor to hold under the 1984 edition of the FCEC form had to be bona fide, and perhaps also reasonable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Costs

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146943

Wealands (Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Brian Wealands Deceased) v CLC Contractors Limited and Key Scaffolding Limited ; Alan C Bennett and Sons Limited Parties: CA 22 Jul 1999

The standard terms of an appointment of an arbitrator as between a contractor and sub-contractor gave the arbitrator power to make an order under the Act awarding a contribution from a third party not involved in the initial arbitration.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1922

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Wealands v CLC Contractors Ltd, Key Scaffolding Ltd and another, Third Parties CA 16-Nov-1999
Under a standard form arbitration reference, an arbitrator had the power to make an award for a contribution under the Act. A reference to arbitration under the laws of England meant that all such laws could be applied by the arbitrator as proper. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146837

Broster and Others v Galliard Docklands Ltd and Another: TCC 7 Jul 2011

The defendant builders denied that the claimants had a claim in law against them as regards the construction of their properties. The rooves had lifted in high winds and were said not to have been secured properly. The defendant replied that there was no liability for damage to ‘the thing itself’.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1722 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.441967

Wiltshire County Council v Crest Estates Ltd. and others: CA 5 Aug 2005

The builders had agreed as part of the planning process to indemnify the council against all claims incidental to the carrying out of the works for which permission was given. The council had to compulsorily purchase land, and sought repayment from the contractors of the compensation it had to pay.
Held: In the natural interpretation of the clause the liability to compensate the former owners of land was not described as incidental to the carrying out of the works. (Ward LJ dissenting)

Judges:

Ward, Clarke, Neuberger LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1087, Times 22-Sep-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973, Highways Act 1980 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand HL 13-Jul-1869
In the absence of negligence, damage caused by operations authorised by statute is not compensatable unless the statute expressly so provides. The wording of the sections, and in particular section 6 of the Railways etc Act, only entitled a claimant . .
Cited – Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council HL 22-Jun-2000
The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. Where however damage could be brought within the . .
Cited – Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) v Birkenhead Corporation HL 1974
The House described the way that the 1845 Act continued to affect the calculation of compensation: ‘The relevant section of the Act of 1845 (section 68) has, over 100 years, received through a number of decisions, some in this House, and by no means . .
Cited – Sirius International Insurance Company (Publ) v FAI General Insurance Limited and others HL 2-Dec-2004
The appellant had taken certain insurance risks on behalf of the respondents, subject to banking indemnities. Disputes arose and were settled under a Tomlin order, which was now itself subject to challenge.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .

Cited by:

See Also – Wiltshire County Council v Crest Estates Ltd and others CA 5-Aug-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.229685

Bellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited v E Turner and Sons Limited: Admn 28 Jan 2000

The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they followed good building practice and the requirements of the Building Regulations, would have constructed, a compartment wall which would have prevented the spread. The fire passed over the top of the wall which was not constructed to good building practice. The claimant appealed a preliminary ruling that damages for part of the loss were unrecoverable as pure economic loss.
Held: The claim amounted to a claim for an omission to act. In many circumstanmces it is not possible to draw a satisfactory line between misfeasance and malfeasance. There was no proper reason to differentiate between the original and subsequent owners. The judge had correctly interpreted and applied the law, and the appeal and cross appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr. Justice Wall

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 284, [2000] BLR 97

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Murphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
Cited – Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL 12-May-1977
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . .
Cited – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council CA 1972
The court considered the liability in negligence of a Council whose inspector had approved a building which later proved defective.
Held: The Council had control of the work and with such control came a responsibility to take care in . .

Cited by:

See Also – Bellefield Computer Services and others v E Turner and Sons Limited and others CA 18-Dec-2002
The defendants had carried out works of construction on the premises. They subcontracted the design, but not the supervision, of the works to architects. Years later there was a fire, which spread rapidly because of negligence in the design of a . .
Cited – Abbott and Another v Will Gannon and Smith Ltd CA 2-Mar-2005
The claimant had employed the defendants to design refurbishment works for their hotel. The work was said to be negligent, and the claimant sought damages. The defendant argued as a preliminary point that the claim was time barred. The question was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140098

Mark Wilkinson Furniture Limited and Construction Industry Training Board: Admn 12 Jan 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 280

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See also – Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board QBD 10-Oct-2000
The operation of installing kitchens could amount to work altering a building. Accordingly firms carrying out such installations were liable to pay a levy as a contribution to the industry’s training scheme. Although in many cases fittings might . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board QBD 10-Oct-2000
The operation of installing kitchens could amount to work altering a building. Accordingly firms carrying out such installations were liable to pay a levy as a contribution to the industry’s training scheme. Although in many cases fittings might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Employment

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140093

George Fisher Holding Limited v Multi Design Consultants Limited, Roofdec Limited, Severfield-Reeve Pl, and Others: TCC 6 Apr 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Technology 329

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – George Fisher Holding Limited v Multi Design Consultants Limited, Roofdec Limited, Severfield-Reeve Plc and Others QBD 10-Feb-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136103

George Fisher Holding Limited v Multi Design Consultants Limited, Roofdec Limited, Severfield-Reeve Plc and Others: QBD 10 Feb 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC QB 341

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – George Fisher Holding Limited v Multi Design Consultants Limited, Roofdec Limited, Severfield-Reeve Pl, and Others TCC 6-Apr-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135905

Bouygues UK Limited v Dahl-Jensen UK Limited: TCC 17 Dec 1999

An arbitrator had made an award, the consequence of which, it was claimed, would lead to a retention being released before it was actually due. It was claimed that this part of the award was outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
Held: Adjudication was for this purpose closely analogous to the giving of an opinion by an expert. The particular issue had not been referred for adjudication. Order accordingly.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Dyson

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Technology 182, [2000] BLR 49

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – C and B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd CA 31-Jan-2002
The claimant appealed a refusal of summary judgement, in a claim to enforce an arbitration award. Where an award was challenged, enforcement should still be allowed to continue unless the challenge went as to the jurisdiction of the reference. . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard TCC 26-Apr-2005
Application for leave to appeal against arbitrator’s award in construction dispute.
Held: The appeal was declined. . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Appeal from – Bouygues (Uk) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (Uk) Ltd (In Liquidation) CA 17-Aug-2000
When the decision of an adjudicator was challenged, the court should ask whether the adjudicator had either asked the right question but in the wrong way, or whether he had even answered the wrong question. The procedure was intended to provide a . .
Cited – Alexander and Law Ltd v Coveside (21BPR) Ltd TCC 12-Dec-2013
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award. The respondent resisted, saying that the claimant faced unresolved insolvency proceedings, and may be unable to repay any sum later found due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135804

The Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond and Others: TCC 18 Dec 2000

Citations:

1993-ORB-No 46, [2000] EWHC Technology 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond etc TCC 8-Jan-1999
. .
See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and others TCC 9-Dec-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and others CA 9-Feb-2001
. .
See Also – The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others (No 5) CA 11-Apr-2001
When looking at an application to strike out a claim, the normal ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof did not apply. It was the court’s task to assess whether, even if supplemented by evidence at trial, the claimant’s claim was bound to fail . .
See Also – The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others CA 23-May-2001
. .
See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and others HL 25-Apr-2002
The claimants sought damages against the defendants for their late delivery of a building. The contractors sought to share the damages with the architects who had certified the delays, defeating their own claims.
Held: The Act sought to extend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135638

Baxall Securities Ltd Norbain SDC Ltd v Sheard Walshaw Partnership: TCC 30 Oct 2000

Judges:

Bowsher QC J

Citations:

[2001] BLR 36, [2000] EWHC Technology 53

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Approved – Bellefield Computer Services and others v E Turner and Sons Limited and others CA 18-Dec-2002
The defendants had carried out works of construction on the premises. They subcontracted the design, but not the supervision, of the works to architects. Years later there was a fire, which spread rapidly because of negligence in the design of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Construction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135687

Stent Foundations Ltd v M J Gleeson Group Plc: TCC 9 Aug 2000

The defendant company sought to rely upon an exemption clause.
Held: Applying standard rules for contract interpretation, the exemption clause was to be construed against the one proposing it. At best the clause was ambiguous, and the defendants claim for exemption failed. The clause did not satisfy the first two tests set down in the Canada Steamship case, and the controversial third test could be ignored.

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Technology 66

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gillespie Bros and Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd CA 1973
The court looked at how it should construe the Canada Steamship guidelines with regard to an exemption clause absolving one party of responsibility for negligence. There was a express reference to negligence by the words ‘save harmless and keep . . . .
Cited – Lamport and Holt Lines v Coubro, The Raphael CA 1982
The court considered how it should treat the construction of a contractual clause claiming that one party should be exempt from liability for its own negligence: ‘Thus, if an exemption clause of the kind we are considering excludes liability for . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Cited – E E Caledonia Ltd v Orbit Valve Plc CA 30-May-1994
A clause providing for an indemnity against any claim arising from the manner of performance was not to be construed to cover negligence. ‘The printed conditions in the agreement in this case were plainly drafted by a lawyer. Why was an express . .
Cited – E E Caledonia Ltd v Orbit Valve Plc QBD 1994
A clause which gave an indemnity against any claim arising from the manner of performance of the contract by one party was not to be construed to exempt negligence: ‘The principle is that in the absence of clear words the parties to a contract are . .
Cited – Industrie Chimiche v Nea Ninemia Shipping 1983
Construction of exemption clause in time charterparty: ‘Since it is inherently improbable that one party to a contract should intend to absolve the other party from the consequences of the latter’s own negligence, the court will presume a clause not . .
Cited – Smith v UMB Chrysler (Scotland) Ltd HL 9-Nov-1977
The principles set out in Canada Steamship apply to ‘clauses which purport to exempt one party to a contract from liability’. The principles should be applied without ‘mechanistic construction’.
Lord Keith of Kinkel said: The tests were . .
Cited – Walters v Whessoe CA 1968
The court looked at clauses exempting a party from liability for negligence.
Sellers LJ said: ‘It is well established that indemnity will not lie in respect of loss due to a person’s negligence or that of his servants unless adequate or clear . .
Limited – Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King PC 21-Jan-1952
A lease of a freight shed exonerated the lessor from ‘any claim . . for . . damage . . to . . Goods . . being . . in the said shed’ and requiring the lessee to indemnify the lessor ‘from and against all claims’. The negligent use of an oxy-acetylene . .
Cited – Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd CA 19-Nov-1971
The plaintiff left his car with the defendant garage for repair. Whilst there it was substantially damaged by fire. The defendant sought to rely upon their terms which would negative liability, saying that the terms had been incorporated by . .
Mentioned – Lamport and Holt Lines v Coubro and Scrutton (M and I) Ltd, (The Raphael) 1982
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction, Consumer

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135712

Scottish and Newcastle Plc v G D Construction (St Albans) Ltd: TCC 29 Mar 2001

The defendant contracted to refurbish premises belonging to the claimant. A fire caused by a sub-contractor caused damage, and the cost was sought from the defendant. He claimed that the standard form contract excluded its liability, including damages for interruption of business. The contract required the employer to take out joint names insurance in respect of such risks, but did that obligation include an obligation to insure against business interruption. Where a party sought to be excused from his own negligence under the contract, he should show some consideration for that excuse. The reference to damage did not include damages for interruption to business, and the defendant was not excused liability.

Judges:

udge Richard Seymour Q.C.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Technology 444

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership, Hoare Lea and Partners (a Firm) and Others CA 4-Jul-2000
A building owner entered into a standard form of building contract for the construction of office premises. Under its terms the contractor was required to take out and maintain a policy in the names of the owner, the contractor and specialist . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135520

The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others (No 5): CA 11 Apr 2001

When looking at an application to strike out a claim, the normal ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof did not apply. It was the court’s task to assess whether, even if supplemented by evidence at trial, the claimant’s claim was bound to fail and even if unchallenged. The court could look to witness statements to see what might be said at trial. The court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial. The judge had been wrong to exclude some claims under 3.1(2)(k), since this only created confusion as to the status of the decision as a whole, and finality was to be sought.
The overriding objective of the CPR does not provide that every submission undealt with in the judgment amounts to special circumstances requiring the court to allow the matter to be re-opened. In reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Clarke And Lord Justice Laws

Citations:

Times 11-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 550, [2001] BLR 297, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 526

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(k)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and others CA 9-Feb-2001
. .
See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond etc TCC 8-Jan-1999
. .
See Also – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and others TCC 9-Dec-1999
. .
See Also – The Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond and Others TCC 18-Dec-2000
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Miller (T/A Waterloo Plant) v Cawley CA 30-Jul-2002
At the end of the claimant’s case the defendant wished to submit that there was no case for her to answer. The judge then put the defendant to an election as to whether or not she would call any evidence. She appealed.
Held: It is not . .
See Also – The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others CA 23-May-2001
. .
Appeal from – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and others HL 25-Apr-2002
The claimants sought damages against the defendants for their late delivery of a building. The contractors sought to share the damages with the architects who had certified the delays, defeating their own claims.
Held: The Act sought to extend . .
Cited – Trustees In the Charity of Sir John Morden v Mayrick; Graham v Mayrick CA 12-Jan-2007
The claimant had owned tracts of land in London for very many years, but the title deeds had been lost. The defendant had purchased a part from a company who had in turn purchased from the claimants, but the parties disputed an adjacent strip of . .
Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimant designed games software and complained of infringements by the defendant of licensing agreements by failing to allow audits as required.
Held: The defendant should be allowed to be heard on the standard practices for management of . .
Cited – Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others ChD 7-Mar-2007
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment.
Held: . .
Cited – Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
Cited – Parties Named In Schedule A v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd and Another QBD 28-May-2010
The defendant merchant banks resisted two group claims for annual bonuses for 2008 made by the employee claimants. They now sought summary judgment against the claims. The employer had declared a guaranteed minimum bonus pool available to make the . .
Cited – Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others ChD 27-Jul-2010
The claimant alleged that the proposal for a game show submitted by him had been used by the various defendants. He alleged breaches of copyright and of confidence. Application was now made to strike out the claim. . .
Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
Cited – Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd ChD 2-Mar-2009
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request
The court considered an application for summary judgment.
Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as . .
Cited – Guthrie v Morel and Others ChD 5-Nov-2015
The will had failed clearly to identify a property in Spain the subject of a bequest.
Held: Summary judgment was given. ‘It seems to me to be clear that the deceased intended by his Will to deal with his entire estate and that he intended the . .
Cited – Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell Llp IPEC 22-Dec-2016
Distinction between reputation and goodwill
The claimant had practised independently as an employment solicitor. For a period, she was a partner with the defendant firm practising under the name ‘Bhayani Bracewell’. Having departed the firm, she now objected to the continued use of her name, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Construction, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135498

Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd v Henry Boot Plc: TCC 1 May 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Technology 428

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Henry Boot Construction Limited v Alstom Combined Cycles Limited (Formerly GEC Alsthom Combined Cycles Limited) TCC 22-Jan-1999
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Henry Boot Construction Limited v Alstom Combined Cycles Limited (Formerly GEC Alsthom Combined Cycles Limited) TCC 22-Jan-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135477

British Telecommunications plc v James Thomson and Sons (Engineers) Ltd: HL 29 Oct 1998

A sub-contractor would owe a duty of care to the main contractor and the insurer be entitled to stand subrogated to the main contractor where the sub-contractor was not nominated as being exempt from such duty in the insurance.

Judges:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Mustill, Lord Cookeof Thorndon, Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1998, Gazette 27-Jan-1999, [1998] UKHL 46

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – British Telecommunications Plc v James Thomson and Sons (Engineers) Ltd IHCS 28-Jan-1997
Main contractor’s insurance against a sub-contractor’s negligence relieved the sub-contractor of his duty of care. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135157

Stiell Ltd v Riema Control Systems Ltd: IHCS 28 Jun 2000

Contractors had been called upon to carry out work beyond that originally requested, and sought payment, and had arrested a payment in the hands of a third party. Before raising the action they had referred the matter to adjudication under the Act.
Held: The fact of the reference did not change the fact of the claim, and the effect of the arbitrator’s decision in rejecting the claim was not like that of a certifying engineer or architect.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Arbitration, Construction, Scotland

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89556

The Central Tenders Board and Another v White (T/A White Construction Services): PC 6 Oct 2015

From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Montserrat) The CTB appealed from a decision that it was in breach of a building contract made with the respondent, Mr White (trading as White Construction Services). The trial judge had ordered that Mr White should recover compensation to be assessed in default of agreement. The CTB’s defence to Mr White’s claim was that it acted ultra vires in failing to comply with proper procedures for the procurement of goods or services by tender, and therefore that the contract was void.

Judges:

Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2015] UKPC 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Administrative, Contract

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.553063

Jacob and Youngs Inc v Kent: 1921

Court of Appeals of New York. A building contract specified that the plumbing should use a particular type of piping. In fact the builder used a different type of piping. Cardozo J. stated: ‘In the circumstances of this case, we think the measure of the allowance is not the cost of replacement, which would be great, but the difference in value, which would be either nominal or nothing . . It is true that in most cases the cost of replacement is the measure . . The owner is entitled to the money which will permit him to complete, unless the cost of completion is grossly and unfairly out of proportion to the good to be obtained. When that is true, the measure is the difference in value. Specifications call, let us say, for a foundation built of granite quarried in Vermont. On the completion of the building, the owner learns that through the blunder of a subcontractor part of the foundation has been built of granite of the same quality quarried in New Hampshire. The measure of allowance is not the cost of reconstruction. ‘There may be omissions of that which could not afterwards be supplied exactly as called for by the contract without taking down the building to its foundations, and at the same time the omission may not affect the value of the building for use or otherwise, except so slightly as to be hardly appreciable.’

Judges:

Cardoza J

Citations:

(1921) 230 NY 239

Cited by:

Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Construction, International

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.526102

Allied London and Scottish Properties Plc v Riverbrae Construction Ltd: OHCS 12 Nov 1999

An adjudicator who acts under the Scheme upon the written submission of the parties and without any oral hearing was not able to consider making an order for payment of the award by installments where neither party had raised that issue in their written submissions. He was not required by the scheme to consider such a procedure.

Citations:

Times 12-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108

Construction, Scotland

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77760

Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd: 1993

It was argued that the party seeking a referral to arbitration need only rely on the existence of relevant events for its entitlement to an extension of time and has no regard for any delay for which it may be culpable and which may impact at the same time as the relevant event.
Held: A limitation to be placed on the approach suggsted was that the net delay of the event should be added to the time for completion, rather than the gross delay including prior culpable delay.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

(1993) 62 BLR 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard TCC 26-Apr-2005
Application for leave to appeal against arbitrator’s award in construction dispute.
Held: The appeal was declined. . .
Questioned – Henry Boot Construction v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd TCC 1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.235379

John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner R J Brown Pty Ltd: 1996

(Supreme Court of Victoria) The defendant applied to strike out substantial parts of a statement of claim on grounds including that the defendant faced allegations that by reason of breaches of contract the plaintiff had suffered loss of damage, particulars of which were given in a schedule A in which the loss and damage was calculated in terms of the difference between the tender estimate for the part in question and its actual cost. The defendant attacked the pleading on the grounds that such an allegation was embarrassing since it did not establish a causal link between the breach and the damage alleged.
Held: The court considered the treatment of global claims, that is claims where the claimant does not seek to attribute any specific loss to a specific breach of contract, but is content to allege a composite loss as a result of all the breaches alleged: ‘Where the loss is caused by a breach of contract, causation for the purposes of a claim for damages must be determined by the application of common sense to the logical principles of causation’ and ‘it is possible to say that a given loss was in law caused by a particular act or omission notwithstanding that other acts or omissions played a part in its occurrence. It is sufficient that the breach be a material cause… This last matter may be of particular importance in a case like the present where a number of potential causal factors may be present.’ The court noted that a global claim had been held to be permissible in the case where it was impracticable to disentangle that part of the loss which is attributable to each head of claim. The particular claim under consideration was a total cost claim: ‘The logic of such a claim is this: the contractor might reasonably have expected to perform the work for a particular sum, usually the contract price; the proprietor committed breaches of contract; the actual reasonable cost of the work was a sum greater than the expected cost.
The logical consequence implicit in this is that the proprietor’s breaches caused that extra cost or cost overrun. This implication is valid only so long as, and to the extent that, the three propositions are proved and a further unstated one is accepted: the proprietor’s breaches represent the only causally significant factor responsible for the difference between the expected cost and the actual cost. … The unstated assumption underlying the inference may be further analysed. What is involved here is two things: first, the breaches of contract caused some extra cost; secondly, the contractor’s cost overrun is this extra cost. … It is the second aspect of the unstated assumption … which is likely to cause the more obvious problem because it involves an allegation that the breaches of contract were the material cause of all of the contractor’s cost overrun. This involves an assertion that, given that the breaches of contract caused some extra cost, they must have caused the whole of the extra cost because no other relevant cause was responsible for any part of it.’

Judges:

Byrne J

Citations:

[1996] 82 BLR 83

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – John Doyle Construction Limited v Laing Management (Scotland) Limited SCS 18-Apr-2002
The pursuer made a loss and expense claim in global form in a construction dispute. He was unable to prove that all of his losses stemmed from the default.
Held: A global claim requires proof that each and every element of the loss claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182082

Trafalgar House Construction (Regions) Ltd v General Surety and Guarantee Co Ltd: HL 4 Jul 1995

The main contractors for the construction of a new leisure complex for a borough council entered into a subcontract for the groundworks. The subcontractor and the appellants provided a Bond for 10 percent of the value of the subcontract on condition that ‘if the subcontractors shall duly perform and observe’ all the terms of the contract or ‘if on default by the subcontractor the surety shall satisfy and discharge the damages sustained by the main contractor thereby’ up to the amount of the Bond then the obligation would be null and void but otherwise remain in full force.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The subcontractor was entitled to a set off against a claim on the bond given to the head contractor. A sub-contractor’s bond was a guarantee and he was entitled to the rights of a guarantor. The House viewed with scepticism a submission that it was an implied term of a bond that any overpayment would be repaid.
Bonds in similar form had always been treated as guarantee; the bond referred to the appellants as ‘the surety’; the contract appeared in substance to be one to answer for the default of another; and it contained express provisions negating release of the surety upon a variation of the contract or forbearance as to time.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘There is no doubt that in a contract of guarantee parties may, if so minded, exclude any one or more of the normal incidents of suretyship. However, if they choose to do so clear and unambiguous language must be used to displace the normal legal consequences of the contract . .’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

Gazette 19-Jul-1995, Times 04-Jul-1995, [1995] 3 All ER 737, [1996] 1 AC 199

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Trafalgar House Construction (Regions) Ltd v General Surety and Guarantee Co Ltd CA 1994
Beldam LJ said: ‘It seems to me implicit that the demand made by the sub-contractor should state the amount of the damages sustained by the default. But it does not follow that, because the main contractor must state the amount of the damages, the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gold Coast Ltd v Caja De Ahorros Del Mediterraneo and others CA 6-Dec-2001
The banks appealed findings as to their liability to pay out under on-demand guarantees they had given in respect of stage payments for the construction of a ship. It was claimed that the delivery times had not been met, and the builder was in . .
Cited – Van Der Merwe and Another v IIG Capital Llc ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties had entered into a debt factoring agreement, under which repayment was sought of some $30m, and the claimants were said to have guaranteed the loan by the factor to their company. The court was asked whether the guarantors had the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89972

Bovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings Construction Ltd: HL 19 Oct 1995

The managing contractors sought damages from a sub-contractor. The contract was on a printed form and in letters. A letter limited time related damages to pounds 100,000. The main contractors sought a much larger sum.
Held: A clause seeking to limit liability must be clear in what it restricts, and is to be read strictly. The sub-contractors had wholly failed to show that the clause could cover their repudiatory breach leading to a termination of the contract. Time was not relevant for this clause after the breach. Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jan-1996, Times 19-Oct-1995, [1995] CLY 5569, 1995 SLT 1339

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd HL 26-Nov-1981
Even though a shipowner who had carried cargo on deck was not entitled to rely on the exceptions to liability in his contract, a limitation clause was different and should not be construed by reference to the specially exacting standards applicable . .
Appeal from – Bovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings Construction Ltd OHCS 1994
Correspondence preceding a contract could be looked at to determine the circumstances in which a provision in the contract was intended to apply.
Lord President Hope said: ‘In my opinion the issue which has arisen between the parties in this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction, Scotland

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78513

Oswald v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd: 1996

The evidential burden of establishing betterment is on the defendant.

Citations:

(1996) 50 Con LR 1

Cited by:

Cited – Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Feb-2000
Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.238588

Commonwealth Construction Co Ltd v Imperial Oil: 1977

(Supreme Court of Canada) de Grandpre J said: ‘On any construction site, and especially when the building being erected is a complex chemical plant, there is ever present the possibility of damage by one tradesman to the property of another and to the construction as a whole. Should this possibility become reality, the question of negligence in the absence of complete property coverage would have to be debated in Court. By recognising in all tradesmen an insurable interest based on that very real possibility, which itself has its source in the contractual arrangements opening the doors of the job site to the tradesmen, the Courts would apply to the construction field the principle expressed so long ago in the area of bailment. Thus all the parties whose joint efforts have one common goal, eg the completion of the construction, would be spared the necessity of fighting between themselves should an accident occur involving the possible responsibility of one of them.’

Judges:

de Grandpre J

Citations:

(1977) 69 DLR (3d) 558

Cited by:

Cited – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Insurance, Construction

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236418

Statement (Technology and Construction Court: Arrangements): TCC 7 Jun 2005

In view of the growing importance and volume of Technology and Construction Court Business, the court provided a detailed statement of interim amendments to the arrangements pending a fuller review of needs, including providing additional judicial resources and for allocation and management of cases.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2005

Litigation Practice, Construction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.226216

Barnes and Elliot Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd: 2004

Whether a minor failure of an arbitrator was sufficient to vitiate his decision.

Citations:

[2004] BLR 111

Cited by:

Cited – Ritchie Brothers (Pwc) Limited v David Philp (Commercials) Limited IHCS 24-Mar-2005
The adjudicator had delivered his decision out of time. The pursuer sought to enforce it. The defender aid that if it was delivered out of time it was void.
Held: The expiry of the time limit deprived the arbitrator of jursidcition to decide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.225459

British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd: 1983

An ‘if contract’ is where one party makes an offer capable of acceptance on the basis that ‘if you do this for us, we will do that for you’. Often used in the construction industry.
Goff J said: ‘the question whether . . any contract has come into existence must depend on a true construction of the relevant communications which have passed between the parties and the effect (if any) of their actions pursuant to those communications. There can be no hard and fast answer to the question whether a letter of intent will give rise to a binding agreement; everything must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. In most cases where work is done pursuant to a request contained in a letter of intent, it will not matter whether a contract did or did not come into existence; because if the party who has acted on the request is simply claiming payment, his claim will usually be based upon a quantum meruit, and it will make no difference whether that claim is contractual or quasi-contractual. Of course, a quantum meruit claim (like the old actions for money had and received and for money paid) straddles the boundaries of what we now call contract and restitution; so the mere framing of a claim as a quantum meruit claim, or a claim for a reasonable sum, does not assist in classifying the claim as contractual or quasi-contractual. . . As a matter of analysis the contract (if any) which may come into existence following a letter of intent may take one of two forms: either there may be an ordinary executory contract, under which each party assumes reciprocal obligations to the other; or there may be what is sometimes called an ‘if’ contract, ie a contract under which A requests B to carry out a certain performance and promises B that, if he does so, he will receive a certain performance in return, usual remuneration for his performance. The latter transaction is really no more than a standing offer which, if acted upon before it lapses or is lawfully withdrawn, will result in a binding contract. The former type of contract was held to exist by Judge Fay QC in Turriff Construction Ltd. v. Regalia Knitting Mills Ltd (1971) 9 BLR 20; and it is the type of contract for which [Counsel for CBE] contended in the present case. Of course, as I have already said, everything must depend on the facts of the particular case; but certainly, on the facts of the present case – and, as I imagine, on the facts of most cases – this must be a very difficult submission to maintain.’
If there is no contract there can be no question of a party to a transaction being in breach of an obligation of the type which can only arise under a contract. ‘In my judgment, the true analysis of the situation is this. Both parties confidently expected a formal contract to eventuate. In these circumstances, to expedite performance under that anticipated contract, one requested the other to commence the contract work, and the other complied with that request. If thereafter – as anticipated – a contract was entered into, the work done as requested will be treated as having been performed under that contract; if, contrary to their expectation, no contract was entered into, then the performance of the work is not referable to any contract of which the terms can be ascertained, and the law simply imposes an obligation on the party who made the request to pay a reasonable sum for such work as has been done pursuant to that request, such an obligation sounding in quasi-contract or, as we now say, in restitution.’

Judges:

Robert Goff J

Citations:

[1984] 1 All ER 504, (1983) BLR 94, [1984] 1 WLR 504

Cited by:

Cited – Mowlem Plc (T/A Mowlem Marine) v Stena Line Ports Ltd TCC 6-Oct-2004
Construction of ‘if contract’ for work at Holyhead ferry terminal. . .
Cited – Becerra v Close Brothers ComC 25-Jun-1999
ComC Claim for fee for introducing successful bidder at a controlled auction – no express contract – no implied contract based on City practice – claim for quantum meruit failed because no express or implied . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Cited – Countrywide Communications Limited v ICL Pathway Ltd 1996
The court considered the authorities bearing on the question of whether or not a claim under a quantum meruit can successfully be made for work done in anticipation of a contract which does not materialise. Strauss J concluded: ‘I have found it . .
Mentioned – MSM Consulting Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania QBD 30-Jan-2009
The claimants sought commission or a quantum meruit for the part they had taken in finding a suitable site for the defendant’s High Commission in London.
Held: The works undertaken were consistent with the claimant seeking work from the . .
Cited – RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Company Kg (UK Production) SC 10-Mar-2010
The parties had reached agreement in outline and sought to have the contract formalised, but went ahead anyway. They now disputed whether an agreement had been created and as to its terms if so.
Held: It was unrealistic to suggest that no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.216348

Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: 2001

‘Note (1)(a) of Group 6 provides that an essential feature of a protected building is that it is a listed building ‘within the meaning of’ the 1990 Act. A listed building ‘within the meaning of’ the 1990 Act is a building which falls within the extended definition in section 1(5) of the 1990 Act.’

Judges:

Etherton J

Citations:

[2001] STC 585

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 8 Grp 6, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 1(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 12-May-2002
Taxpayers sought exemption from VAT for works to a building. The commissioners claimed that the main building was not a dwelling, and that therefore the outbuilding would not be exempt.
Held: The main building was listed, and the outbuilding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Construction

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193895

Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd: HL 1986

The court acknowledged the practice in construction contracts making an express link between the liability imposed on the contractor, the specific aspect of such liability which iwas excluded and the existence of insurance (intended to benefit both contractor and employer) in respect of that excluded liability.

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 995, [1986] 2 All ER 957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scottish and Newcastle plc v GD Construction (St Albans) Ltd CA 22-Jan-2003
The employer and main contractor had contracted under the JCT conditions. The employer had been obliged to insure the property for fire in their joint names, but had not done so. After a fire caused by the negligence of a sub-contractor, he sued. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181188

Plant Construction Plc v Clive Adams Associates and Another: CA 1 Mar 2000

A sub-contractor obliged under contract to carry out works in a certain way and to a specification set down by the main contractor, remained under a duty to warn that employer of any obvious danger. He was subject to the normal standards of behaving with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent contractor whatever was said in the contract about obeying instructions.

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Construction

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84758

Harbour and General Works Ltd v The Environment Agency: CA 22 Oct 1999

Where parties operated under a contract which provided for arbitration provided reference was claimed within a certain time scale, the failure of one party to apply for a reference in time because he had failed to read that part of the contract was not a sufficient reason to allow an extension of time. This applied even though the term was incorporated by reference, and that such applications need not be construed strictly.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, [1999] BLR 409

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J T Mackley and Company Ltd v Gosport Marina Ltd TCC 3-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged the validity of a notice to refer a case to arbitration. The respondent challenged saying that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the objection, and that such issues were to be decided by the arbitrator. The claim related . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Contract, Construction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81226

Henry Boot Construction Ltd v GEC Alstom Combiined Cycles Ltd: CA 11 Apr 2000

A contract in Standard Institute of Civil Engineers conditions provided that variations in materials should be costed for in line with the costings schedules. The fact that the schedules were in error did not mean that they could departed from. A second clause limiting the application to situations where this provided a reasonable effect could not apply unless the prerequisites of the subsequent clause also applied, and the alterations in materials or works were substantial.

Citations:

Times 11-Apr-2000, Gazette 28-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Construction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81325

Bouygues (Uk) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (Uk) Ltd (In Liquidation): CA 17 Aug 2000

When the decision of an adjudicator was challenged, the court should ask whether the adjudicator had either asked the right question but in the wrong way, or whether he had even answered the wrong question. The procedure was intended to provide a quick and summary disposal, but that procedure might not be appropriate in cases involving insolvency of one party and or cross claims. Any creditor who owes a debt to an insolvent company, no matter how long overdue, may set off that debt in full against his own claim in the liquidation.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ

Citations:

Times 17-Aug-2000, Gazette 14-Sep-2000, [2000] BLR 522

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bouygues UK Limited v Dahl-Jensen UK Limited TCC 17-Dec-1999
An arbitrator had made an award, the consequence of which, it was claimed, would lead to a retention being released before it was actually due. It was claimed that this part of the award was outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard TCC 26-Apr-2005
Application for leave to appeal against arbitrator’s award in construction dispute.
Held: The appeal was declined. . .
Cited – Melville Dundas Ltd and others v George Wimpey UK Ltd and others HL 25-Apr-2007
The appellant sought an interim payment for works of construction undertaken for the respondents under a JCT contract. The respondents contended that, having terminated the contract on their receivership, the contract and Act meant that the interim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Commercial, Insolvency

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78510

George Stow and Co Ltd v Walter Lawrence Construction Ltd: 1992

A payment under the Act means a monetary payment: ‘Since such a payment is required where s 1(2) applies it follows that an individual, uninsured claimant who satisfies his liability to the victim by doing remedial work with his own hands cannot claim contribution to its value under the 1978 Act. That . . . seems to me to be inescapable.’

Judges:

Judge John Hicks QC

Citations:

(1992) 40 Con LR 127

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1(2)

Cited by:

Cited – Baker and Davies Plc v Leslie Wilks Associates (A Firm) TCC 30-Jun-2005
The defendant sought a contribution or indemnity from a building contractor, who replied that a contribution was only capable of being ordered where a payment in money had been made.
Held: Work which had been done ‘in kind’ could be set off . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.230022

Lobb Partnership Limited v Aintree Racecourse Company Limited: 2000

A clause in an agreement provided that disputes might be be dealt with by arbitration but shall otherwise be referred to the English Courts.
Held: Each party had a right of election for arbitration. ‘The English courts have consistently taken the view that, provided that the contract gives a reasonably clear indication that arbitration is envisaged by both parties as a means of dispute resolution, they will treat both parties as bound to refer disputes to arbitration even though the clause is not expressed in mandatory terms.’

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[2000] 1 Building Law Reports 65

Cited by:

Cited – NB Three Shipping Ltd. v Harebell Shipping Ltd ComC 13-Oct-2004
Under charterparty agreements, certain disputes were to be referred to arbitration. The claimant sought to pursue a dispute before the court.
Held: The lack of mutuality on the arbitration clause did not prevent its validity. The party had the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.216402